Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 308 of 376 (540536)
12-26-2009 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2009 11:18 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
We don't live in the days of the Ku Klux Klan roaming the landscape lynching black people.
Actually, we do. It is still legal to torture gay people in this country. And, in fact, the very people who turn you over to the torturers are your parents.
We still have the police deliberately raiding gay bars under pretenses of "public sex," even though their own investigators are unable to provide any evidence of it taking place.
The very people who are supposed to be protecting people are the ones who are carrying out the acts of terrorism.
Shouldn't our legislation be doing something about that?
Surely you aren't seriously claiming that because a black person was elected president, there is no racial problem in this country, are you?
Have you not seen the teabaggers?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 11:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 309 of 376 (540540)
12-26-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Legend
12-24-2009 4:56 AM


Legend writes:
quote:
My argument is that the "intent to defraud" isn't the general Intent behind the Act, as defined by Criminal Law.
So your argument is that a piece of legislation that was written by lawyers for lawyers is actually a fraud upon the entire jurisprudence in the use of the word "intent" and that not a single defense attorney has figured this out in order to show that the prosecution hasn't met the standard of proof, only providing evidence of motive rather than intent as the statute requires? That all the judges involved are in on the fraud? That the entire legal profession is engaged in a Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) where all uses of the word "intent" in the law are actually interpreted as "motive"?
And you, someone who is not trained in the law, not charged with interpreting the law, not given the task of writing the law, you know better than all of them to be able to tell them that they are getting it all wrong?
Yeah, sure.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
I don't know of any incidents that were criminally prosecuted because the accused allegedly called the victim a fraudulent epithet , do you?
She was found not guilty. So by your logic, because a person was found not guilty of a crime, we should do away with the law that defined the crime lest anybody else be forced to go through a trial only to be found not guilty.
Yeah, sure.
quote:
I don't know of any incidents that were criminally prosecuted because of sheer conjecture that the accused was targeting fraud-vulnerable victims, do you?
No, you don't. Where in your source do you find justification for your claim of "sheer conjecture"?
You do realize that a prosecutor can be charged with misconduct for knowingly filing charges that cannot be supported, yes? That the defense will immediately call for dismissal if the prosecution cannot meet the standard of proof required for filing charges, yes?
You will note that the defense is not claiming that the attacks weren't carried out based upon age. They're claiming that he didn't do it at all.
So your argument is that everybody in this case is an incompetent boob.
Yeah, sure.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Legend, posted 12-24-2009 4:56 AM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 316 of 376 (540791)
12-29-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Legend
12-28-2009 6:14 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
it is indeed "intends.". Like I said, the word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times. Which is TRUE. What is your problem? We're doing word counts here, aren't we?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You really are arguing that because the specific letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t, then the law isn't talking about intent but is instead talking about motive.
And you're the only one who has figured this out.
My god, Legend, what the hell are you waiting for? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because it says, "intends," not "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
You're claiming it's disingenuous to state that "intends to" doesn't refer to "Intent" in the context of Criminal Law but at the same time you're supporting that the presence of "intends to" in reference to a follow-on action to the primary Act means "Intent to commit the Act". Who's really being disingenuous here?
Do you really have to ask? Again, get your ass down to the local attorney and let them know you have found the gaping flaw in the law. "Intends" isn't a reference to intent but to motive!
By this logic, we should also do away with all laws referencing fraud because they, too, are in "reference to a follow-on action to the primary act" which specifically mean "intent to commit the act."
What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is a crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
"Intending to" achieve a specific goal after the Act is not the same as the *design or deliberation to commit the Act*, which is what the definiton of general Intent is.
And if that were what the law said, you might have a point. But alas, that isn't what the law says.
quote:
I'm quoting you Criminal Law
No, you're not. You're tossing around definitions you don't understand from secondary and tertiary sources. At no time in this entire discussion have you ever quoted actual criminal law.
I'm the one quoting criminal law to you. You will notice that I am the only one who has in this entire thread. And the law says intent, not motive.
quote:
If you think that the definitions of Motive and Intent I'm supplying are invalid then now's the time to explain why and how.
I already have. The law does not use the word "motive" anywhere. I challenge you to find me a single reference in actual law where it does.
Hint: Wikipedia references and dictionary lookups are insufficient. You need to quote actual criminal law.
That said, the problem is not with your definitions of motive and/or intent. The problem is that the law specifically mentions intent. The very discussion of the law you are complaining about by the people who wrote the law was specifically over intent. It was done to ensure that it is only criminal when deliberately and purposefully done.
quote:
If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Um, you did read the law, yes? I've quoted it to you a half dozen times. The intent is the crime. What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is the crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
I'm claiming that "acting with intent to achieve X" is different to "acting with purpose or deliberation to act", i.e. 'Intent' in the legal sense.
Those are the same thing. X is the crime. If you act to achieve X, then you are acting with "intent." That's the definition of "intent." It's what allows us to separate accident from crime, self-defense from assault, etc.
By your logic, we should be getting away with all fraud legislation because those laws are the exact same thing: "Intent" to defraud. The crime is fraud, and thus certain actions carried out with intent to commit fraud are crimes. Taking money from a person is not, in and of itself, a crime just as performing a play is not, in and of itself, a crime.
It is the intent of those actions that makes it a crime. If you intend to defraud someone through a monetary scheme, then it's a crime. If you intend to stir up religious hatred through the performance of a play, then it's a crime.
quote:
I'm also arguing that "acting intending to achieve X" is conceptually and effectively akin to "acting because of a desire to achieve X", i.e. 'Motive' in the legal sense.
Which means your argument is that when a law written by lawyers for lawyers refers to "intent," it doesn't really mean "intent" but instead means "motive."
Exactly what context is a law supposed to be interpreted in which allows us to read "intent" and come away with "motive"?
My god, Legend, what the hell are you waiting for? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because it says, "intends," not "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
Further down in this post I'm showing you why this is a correct interpretation and that respectable lawmen, as well as me, also think along these lines.
Except you're not. I really mean it, Legend: Get yourself to your local defense attorney's office and let them know that the prosecution has completely misread the law, only providing evidence of motive, and thus have not met the standard of proof and therefore the only solution is immediate dismissal of all charges.
quote:
My argument is that when the law says "intends to", it isn't referring to the primary Act
And you'd be wrong. The stirring up of religious hatred is the specific crime. None of these things are crimes in and of themselves:
Use of words or behaviour or display of written material
Publishing or distributing written material
Public performance of play
Distributing, showing or playing a recording
Broadcasting or including programme in programme service
Possession of inflammatory material
The only thing that makes them a crime is if they are carried out with intent to commit the actual punishable act: Stirring up religious hatred.
Since you have gone on and on about the "primary act," perhaps you would be so good as to define just what it is you think you are talking about. What is the actual crime?
quote:
If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Um, you did read the law, yes? I've quoted it to you a half dozen times. The intent is the crime. What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is the crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
the Home Office are the people who *made* the law.
Incorrect. Parliament are the people who made the law. The Home Office is, in a broad sense, the police enforcement agency. That's why the discussion of how this law came into being and the specific text of the law in question is an act of Parliament through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The law was originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 21, 2005, had various readings and debates, went to the House of Lords on October 25, 2005, and then back to the House of Commons on January 31, 2006.
But this still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: You are confusing a press release with the actual law. You are trying to say that because a press release says something, then that has a legal precedent.
Then what the hell are you waiting for, Legend? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because a press release says "motivated," rather than "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
They are the people responsible for the enforcement the law. Are you seriously suggesting that they don't know what their very own laws are all about!?!.
Of course not. That's your argument.
My argument is that they know the difference between intent and motive and thus, when actually prosecuting the law, provide evidence of intent since that is specifically what the law describes. My argument is that when providing a press release to people who are not versed in the intricacies of legalese, they use language that can be understood by those laymen.
quote:
That *YOU* know better?
No, that they know better. I think the Home Office is smart enough to know that when the law mentions intent, it really means intent, not motive.
Otherwise, why aren't you banging down the doors of the legal departments, pointing out that they have a sure-fire way to get their clients off? The prosecutors are providing evidence of motive, not intent, and thus they haven't met the standard of proof because the law refers to intent, not motive, and thus there is no case!
quote:
If the Home Office web-site says "motivated" you can be pretty sure that it's used in the colloquial sense as that's the web-site's intended audience. It's not for lawyers, it's for the general public. The same also goes for the FBI site I linked to. Not that it matters much in this case as the legal usage of "Motive" doesn't differ from the colloquial one anyway.
Of course. But since when is a legal case carried out via web site? It is irrelevant what a press release says. The audience of a press release is the general audience who doesn't understand the fineries of legal minutiae. Since the vernacular meanings of "intent" and "motive" overlap, we should not be surprised to find them substitute one for the other.
But in the courtroom, that's a very different story. In the courtroom, words have very specific meanings and the distinctions between motive and intent are clear. And thus, when the law refers to intent, then the prosecution must provide evidence of intent, not motive. Otherwise, the defense would be all over it, pointing out that the law requires evidence of intent but the prosecution has only provided evidence of motive. Thus, the prosecution hasn't met the standard of proof, immediate dismissal.
What are you waiting for, Legend? Hie thee to the legal department and let them know!
quote:
So yes, when the people who made the law tell you what their law is all about, you choose to not believe them and latch onto a technicality in the letter of the law that you think supports your interpretation. Right......!
So no, when the people who made the law tell me what their law is about in colloquial terms, I choose to believe that they are trying to explain to a layman what the law is about. I fully expect that when we get into a courtroom, more exacting standards will be employed.
After all, that's what we do in science all the time. Popular press explanations of things do not use the same standard as what you would find in the peer reviewed press. It's what allows us, even scientists, to use the word "theory" to refer to speculations and educated guesses when talking to people but then tighten things up when actually publishing.
quote:
Oh really? Then why do you think the law feels the need to give definitions of common terms and words that are used in the text?
Because the law, being the law, knows that it is better to be pedantic rather than leave things to chance. But certain terms are so pervasive throughout the law that it would be ridiculous to require definitions of them every single time. "Intent" is just such a term. It shows up in so many criminal definitions that to define it every single time would be ludicrous. Thus, it is defined once and everybody understands what it means.
Since the law is criminalizing an intent when carried out in specific practices, it is important to define what those practices are and what the specific crime is. "Intent" is understood.
quote:
If such a term as "publish" can only be understood in a legal context then what's the point of clarifying it's usage here when the term is already well used and understood in a legal context?
Um, did you bother to read your own source? It's making reference to another piece of law. It isn't re-inventing the wheel. It is letting the legal system know that this instance of "publish" is only what is written and thus is not creating anything new. By your logic, the law is clearly defective because it doesn't define what "guilty" means.
quote:
Could it be because the term has a specific meaning here besides its colloquial sense?
No. Instead, it is because they want to be certain that this law is understood within the context of the specific law and does not introduce any new definitions. We are, after all, dealing with the law and colloquial definitions are never to be considered the default interpretation. We must always look to legal definitions.
quote:
And why is the term "intend to" not defined here?
For the same reason that "guilty" is not defined here. It is part and parcel of criminal legalese and is understood from that context.
quote:
Could it because it's just used in it's old-fashioned colloquial sense.
No. We are dealing with the law and colloquial interpretations are never to be assumed. Instead, legal interpretations are the only ones allowed.
You seriously are claiming that in a law written by lawyers for lawyers, it is not to be interpreted in a legal context.
quote:
Not that it matters much as "intend to" here is not referring to the primary Act in the first place
Incorrect. The "primary act" (and you don't even know what you're talking about when you reference that, do you?) is the very thing that is being intended: Stirring up of religious hatred. The crime is not publishing, performing, or speaking. Those are merely methods by which the crime takes place.
quote:
It's meant to be understood in the context it's written in.
And in exactly what context is a law supposed to be understood if not a legal one? Do you know of any other law that is intended to be interpreted colloquially?
quote:
If the law refers to threatening behaviour aiming to stir up religious hatred then the "stir up hatred" bit is describing what in legal terms is called a 'specific Intent', which is the state of mind causing the accused to act in that specific way in order to achieve something beyond the primary Act.
Incorrect. The "stir up hatred" is the "primary act" (and you don't even know what that means, do you?) The actual crime is the stirring up of religious hatred. Everything else is simply the means to that end.
By your logic, all laws criminalizing fraud need to be stricken from the books because fraud is all about intent. The crime is the intent. Taking money from someone is not a crime in and of itself. It's only when you intend to do so fraudulently that you run afoul of the law.
quote:
What causes the accused to act, (i.e. the Motive) is the desire to "stir up hatred".
Incorrect. The actual act is "stirring up hatred." The means by which that is carried out are merely incidental. The specific crime is the intent: Stirring up religious hatred.
quote:
Even distinguished lawmen admit that laws sometimes single out certain motives merely on the basis of practicality and ease of application. But not you, you 've just seen the phrase "intends to" and are hanging on to it as if it was the last life-raft on Titanic!
Um, did you even bother to read your own source? You even quoted the part that shows you to be completely wrong:
In criminal law, it is generally convenient to use the term intention with reference to intention as to the constituents of the actus reus, and the term motive with reference to the intention with which these constituents were brought about.
The actus reus is stirring up religious hatred. It is not the motive. The actus reus is not publishing or speaking or performing or broadcasting or distributing or possessing. Instead, the crime is the act of stirring up religious hatred. All the rest is just the means by which the act can be carried out. That's why the law is written as it is: If you publish/use/perform/broadcast/distribute/possess something with the "intent" to stir up religious hatred, then you have committed a crime. That isn't motive. Your motive can be anything under the sun from desire for monetary gain to plain boredom. It is irrelevant why you stirred up religious hatred. The crime is specifically the stirring up of religious hatred.
But let's go on. Your own source, specifically referring to hate crimes legislation, makes the same points we've been pointing out to you:
Both courts accepted the argument that hate crime liability impermissibly punishes thought alone, in violation of the First Amendment. Such an argument confronts two difficulties. First, the crimes in question were crimes of violence (assault in Wisconsin, menacing in Ohio, involving a death threat). Thus, they didn’t punish thought alone, but a combination of action and thought. Second, all offenses conditioned on culpability criminalize otherwise innocent action on the basis of mental states. Moreover, many offenses, like homicide, are graded on the basis of different culpable states attending the same conduct. Sentencing laws also often condition the degree of punishment on mental states. Thus, if conditioning the level of punishment on thought is unconstitutional, it would seem that much of the criminal law must be.
That last sentence is the kicker: If your argument regarding hate crimes is true, then we need to toss out much of the criminal law. The fact that you aren't complaining about the distinctions regarding homicide shows that your complaint has very little to do with the actual threat of "thoughtcrime" and everything to do with the people who are being protected by the law.
There's more in that section that demolishes your argument, but I will leave it to you to read your own source. It directly contradicts you:
Any effort to apply the irrelevance of motive maxim to the hate-crimes controversy stumbles over the logical and descriptive objections explored above.
You did read your source before you referenced it, yes?
quote:
quote:
Oh, my god. You really are arguing that. You really are arguing that in an actual law written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context, the word "intent" doesn't really mean "intent" but actually means "motive," even though every defense lawyer would jump upon this as failure of the prosecution to meet its burden, that they have only provided evidence of motive, not intent, and thus demand an immediate dismissal of all charges due to failure to meet the standard of proof.
Which is exactly why the law is written the way it's written. The lawyers have to prove or disprove 'specific intent' which is fine and dandy as there are already other laws setting such a precedent.
The law was specifically written to say "intent" because everybody knows that "intent" really means "motive."
Yeah, sure.
No, the law was written the way it is written because legal words actually mean what they mean in a legal context, not a colloquial context, where "intent" really means "intent."
The actual crime is the stirring up of religious hatred. Speaking, publishing, performing, broadcasting, distributing, possessing, none of those are crime. It is only when the intent of stirring up religious hatred comes along for the ride do we run afoul of the law. That's why the law talks about "intent." That's why the House of Lords had their discussion to ensure that the law targetted "intent" rather than subjective interpretation.
quote:
Of course what is actually being punished is the motive of the accused
Incorrect. What is being punished is the actual act: Stirring up of religious hatred. The means by which this act is carried it is incidental.
quote:
Whether the lawyers believe the law to punish motive or intent is completely irrelevant.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? A law that specifically refers to "intent" but has the prosecutors only providing evidence for motive won't have the defense immediately asking for dismissal? Why on earth not? Because they're in on the scam? It's all one vast conspiracy?
quote:
The law clearly says that threatening with intent to stir hatred is illegal.
That's because the crime is the stirring up of religious hatred, not the means by which that act is carried out.
quote:
The lawyers will try to prove or disprove that the accused's aim was to achieve the "stirring up of hatred" they won't stand up and claim "M'lawd, this law clearly punishes Motive and therefore I refuse to prosecute the defendant!".
Of course the prosecution isn't going to say that, but the defense had better. The law says the crime is based upon intent. If the only thing the prosecution can provide is evidence of motive, then there is no evidence of a crime because the crime is the intent.
quote:
After all *you* are the person suggesting that the Home Office and FBI really don't know what the laws they are making/enforcing are all about!
This from the person who says that a law isn't to be interpreted in a legal context, that because the sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t then it doesn't actually mean intent, that a press release has legal precedent.
That's precious.
No, I'm the one saying that the Home Office and the FBI actually do know what the laws they enforce are all about. That's why they provide evidence of intent, not motive, because the laws reference intent, not motive.
I'm the one saying that hte Home Office and the FBI understand the difference between speaking to a general audience who doesn't understand legalese and actually going into a courtroom and having to follow the strictures of the law.
I'm the one who understands that when the Parliament has a full discussion to ensure that the law is punishing intent rather than incidental activity, then the law really does refer to intent.
I'm the one who understands that neither the Home Office nor the FBI make laws. Parliament and Congress make laws. The Home Office and the FBI merely enforce them.
quote:
You are the one suggesting that countless legal dictionaries and web-sites are wrong
Incorrect. I'm the one suggesting that you don't understand the legal dictionary. It does, indeed, define intent and motive correctly. However, you have confused the two words as witnessed by your claim that a law that says "intent," really means "motive."
And the most precious thing is that your justification of this is that the letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t.
I'm the one suggesting not that the web sites are wrong but that you are misinterpreting them. A press release to the general public is not a legal precedent and cannot be understood as such.
quote:
You are the one claiming that something worded as a secondary aim and subsequent to the Act itself is the actual Intent of the Act, despite what the legal definition of Intent is.
Incorrect. I am the one claiming that the actual crime is the intent. Nobody is punished simply for speaking, publishing, performing, broadcasting, distributing, or possessing. Instead, the actual crime is stirring up religious hatred. Those methods by which it is carried out are incidental.
The law says, "intent." Do you have any evidence that it doesn't?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Legend, posted 12-28-2009 6:14 AM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 324 of 376 (540881)
12-29-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2009 11:29 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
With hate crimes, it isn't a crime to just hate people
Surely you aren't complaining that because the word "hate" is used in the title of the law, that means the statute is criminalizing "hate," are you?
Have you read the laws? They've been quoted here multiple times.
Just what is it you think the laws actually criminalize?
quote:
The exception I see is possession of drugs with intent to supply, but I think that one belongs in the thought crime pile as well. Although, supplying illegal drugs is illegal on its own.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in two sentences, yes? What do you think "supplying illegal drugs" is? That's right: "Intent to distribute."
The point that is being made is that there is a legal distinction between large-scale and small-scale dealing. The people who are running large amounts of drugs are of one class. When those large lots are broken down into smaller lots that are clearly beyond "personal use" (simple possession) but not so large as to be an enterprise, you get "possession with intent to distribute."
You're not really the big dealer, but you're not a simple user, either. You're in between.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 325 of 376 (540882)
12-29-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Legend
12-29-2009 12:59 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
err.....no. this is REALITY!
Huh? She was found not guilty of a hate crime (but guilty of assault). How does a finding of not guilty lead one to conclude that it is "illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race"?
Surely you aren't saying that because somebody was charged with a crime and then found not guilty of it, that makes the entire law that was the basis for the charge illegitimate, are you?
Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere actually being convicted of "merely disliking someone"?
quote:
All it takes is an allegation of a racially-offensive epithet being thrown around while you're having your drunken Saturday night fight.
Huh? She pled guilty and received a suspended sentence. Note, she assaulted the cab driver. She was not charged merely for disliking the driver.
Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere actually being convicted of "merely disliking someone"?
quote:
No hard evidence is needed for you to be charged with a hate-crime, just a simple allegation by anyone who's got a stake in seeing your punishment increased, heck they don't even have to be involved in the incident.
Huh? Where on earth do you find that in your source? You did read your source before you posted it, yes? It appears you have once again confused "incident" with "crime."
A hate "incident," as defined by your own sources, is an act that doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime but should be recorded so that police can be aware of the climate in a particular area and not be caught flat-footed should things get out of hand. That's why the guide you referenced was published:
It is essential for all police staff to be aware of the potential for hate crime to escalate into a critical incident. Failure to provide an appropriate and professional response to such reports could cause irreparable damage to future community confidence in the police service.
You did read your source before you posted it, yes?
Have you ever bothered to read your source before you post it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 12:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 8:05 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 333 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:30 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 326 of 376 (540883)
12-29-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Legend
12-29-2009 1:36 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
she was additionally punished because she was assumed to be a racist based on the language she used while under the influence.
Incorrect. She was not "assumed" to be anything. She was proven to have engaged in racial abuse. No conclusion was made as to what she was thinking, only what she was doing which was physically assaulting someone while engaging in racial abuse.
And on top of that, she pled guilty to it. So not only is this conclusion the legal one, it's what she agreed to herself.
quote:
Surely even you can see how fucked up and sinister this is.
Not at all. She was charged for her actions, not thoughts, and she pled guilty to her actions, not thoughts.
quote:
Surely not even you could think that she was "targeting a whole group" by her behaviour!
Clearly, she was. Her actions indicated such. That's why she was charged for her actions, not thoughts.
quote:
Surely not even you could think that she was trying to "subjugate a community" by her actions!
Clearly, she was or she wouldn't have done what she did. Surely you aren't saying that the only way to attack an entire group by proxy is to do so via large-scale violence, are you?
quote:
the fact that an intoxicated woman was punished and branded a racist
Huh? Where was she "branded a racist"? There is no such admission anywhere in either the charge levied against her nor in her plea of guilty. If you're going to complain about this, why are you ignoring the fact that she pled guilty to it?
quote:
The fact that this woman was assumed to have 'bad thoughts'
First, there was no assumption. It was proven and she pled guilty to it so even she admits she did it.
Second, there was no conneciton to "bad thoughts." Instead, there was only a connection to bad actions.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 1:36 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:51 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 349 of 376 (541155)
01-01-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Legend
12-30-2009 8:05 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
What I've been saying all along is that these laws server as a a weapon against free speech and expression of ideas.
Except you haven't shown a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech. The worst that you have is someone receiving a letter with a lot of questionable process regarding the sending of said letter.
In fact, the very law you're complaining about specifically talks about the need to keep free speech alive:
29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
You did read the law you're complaining about before complaining about it, yes?
Heck, your own source told you that the House of Lords specifically worked to ensure that free speech would be retained:
It appears that the fundamental dispute is that the Lords require there to be an intent to stir up hatred, rather than the intention to, say, crack a funny joke which the police happen to believe could be likely to stir up hatred.
You did read your own source, yes?
quote:
The fact that a run-of-the-mill club fight ended up with the attacker prosecuted for a racially-motivated crime based on the (alleged and unsupported) utterance of *one word* shows exactly that.
Huh? She was found not guilty.
By your logic, we need to do away with the murder statute because there are people who have been found not guilty of it.
By your logic, there isn't a single white supremacist group anywhere to be found in the UK because their speech gets them hauled into court every 20 minutes.
What got her prosecuted for a racially-based crime was the fact that she committed a crime and in the process made comments that indicated it may have been racially-based and thus required a jury to determine what happened.
You seem to be forgetting: She not only claimed that she didn't engage in a racially-motivated crime, she also claimed that she didn't commit any crime at all. She claimed self-defense for her attack.
But she was convicted.
Strange how you're not complaining about the fact that she was hauled into court on an assault charge to begin with.
If it isn't an attack upon of her rights to be subjected to the horror of a trial for assault, then it isn't an attack upon her rights to be subjected to the horror of a trial for a hate crime.
quote:
The message is clear: "watch what you're saying, if your beliefs,opinions,thoughts on race/religion/etc can be associated with a criminal offence -even remotely and without supporting evidence- then we'll make sure you get punished far more than your original offence requires or deserves"
Huh? You still haven't shown anybody anywhere being charged with a criminal offense for speaking.
In fact, the law you're complaining about specifically denies such.
You have to commit an actual crime before you get charged with a hate crime. And there needs to be evidence that your crime was racially-based in order to sustain a charge of a hate crime.
It then goes to trial just like any other crime. By your logic, being charged with assault is such a threat to a person's existence that the message is clear: "What what you're doing for if you defend yourself from an attack, no matter what evidence there is, then we'll make sure you get punished for protected yourself."
If being found not guilty of assault because you didn't actually commit assault doesn't send the population into paroxysms of fear over self-defense, then being found not guilty of a hate crime because you didn't commit a hate crime doesn't cause any trouble for free speech.
quote:
That the attacker was eventually found not guilty of a hate crime just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment, simply appalling.
Then why aren't you complaining about her having been charged with assault in the first place since she was claiming self-defense? It's the exact same concept: If she had been found not guilty of assault, that just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment simply appalling.
The fact that you aren't is indicative that the problem isn't the crime but rather the people being protected by the criminal statute.
quote:
Even more so for a pop singer who makes a living out of popular appeal, suddenly seeing her name on the papers next to a "racially-aggravated assualt" headline.
Right, because popular people are never guilty of serious offenses.
quote:
Just like false-rape-allegataions no court verdict can ever take the slur on the accused's name away, that stays with them for a very long time.
So we should do away with the laws criminalizing rape?
By your logic, we need to do away with the entire criminal enforcement out of fear that an innocent person will be charged with a crime.
quote:
The trial is also a punishment in its own right, without even having to prove your innocence against an unsupported allegation.
Yep. We should never, ever charge anybody with murder lest the verdict come back as "not guilty." Nobody should have to defend themselves against such a heinous charge.
quote:
If that was any other crime other than an alleged 'hate'-crime no added charges would have ever been brought against her.
Right. Because there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder. There certainly aren't various degrees of such.
quote:
If someone simply accused her of stealing or assault the police/Crown Prosecution Service would have done nothing until there was some *evidence* of theft or assault.
Right, because there wasn't any evidence of a hate crime. The judge certainly didn't instruct the jury about how to determine if there was one.
quote:
But no, because this is an alleged 'hate'-crime then the rules are different.
Yep. They just hauled her into court without any indication of anything happening at all. No presentation of evidence was brought at all.
And her attorney was a completely nincompoop who completely missed the fact that the prosecution didn't provide any evidence to justify the charge. No, the defense simply let the prosecution make the charge and hoped that the jury wouldn't agree.
quote:
Just like the APCO (Police) guidelines say (and I've quoted them at least three times on this thread)
Yes, but you have failed to understand them.
Hint: What is the difference between a hate "incident" and a hate "crime"?
quote:
So yes, there you have it
Yep. There we have it: Proof positive that you don't even read your own sources. We've been through this before.
Hint: What is the difference between a hate "incident" and a hate "crime"?
You did read your own source before quoting it, yes?
quote:
if you see someone you dislike having a fight, just tell the police he called the other person an offensive epithet and -hey presto- your enemy will have their name on the papers tagged as a racist/homophobe/whatever and they'll be looking at a few more years added onto their sentence!
Huh? I'm confused. First you were talking about incidents, and now you seemingly have moved onto a crime. Make up your mind. Are we talking about incidents or crimes?
But assuming we're talking about crimes, your scenario fails due to the lack of evidence. You're assuming the police won't engage in any actual investigation, that the defense will not do any investigation, and that the prosecution will attempt to bring forth a charge without any evidence to justify it.
So far, you have been unable to provide any evidence of this ever happening. The only example you've managed to find of anybody being charged with a hate crime resulted in the person being found not guilty. This you take to be proof that we need to get rid of the law before anybody has to suffer the horror of being charged with a crime they weren't guilty of...completely ignoring the fact that this sentiment applies to every single crime out there.
quote:
No, I'm saying that because many people are charged with 'hate'-crimes simply because they've been alleged to utter *one wrong word*, that makes the entire law a sinister, totalitarian tool of oppression that has no place in free and fair society.
Because they were found not guilty?
By your logic, any crappily applied prosecution is justification for getting rid of the law that criminalized the act. Well, every single law has had an overzealous prosecutor charge somebody with it. And we don't find you complaining about the murder statute.
You really think the McMartins are ever going to have a normal life after undergoing a six year (yes...six year) trial for child molestation? The evidence against them couldn't withstand the onslaught of a mosquito's fart, and yet they had to withstand the pain of a trial. The longest and most expensive trial in history.
By your logic, we need to do away with the laws against child abuse because all it takes is one distraught parent to toss out a claim and suddenly we're in trial and someone's life now has a charge against him. After all, divorce attorneys routinely tell husbands to prepare for the wife to accuse them of sexually molesting their children.
By your logic, this is an atrocity and we need to do away with laws against child sexual absue.
quote:
Is that finally clear now?
Oh, it's been clear for quite some time.
You don't really care about the crime. You are upset that certain people are protected against crime.
That's why you don't read your own sources before you post them.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 8:05 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Legend, posted 01-02-2010 8:37 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 357 by Legend, posted 01-02-2010 12:17 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 359 by Legend, posted 01-03-2010 12:49 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 350 of 376 (541156)
01-01-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2009 2:00 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?
Considering that one of them admitted to as much, I'd have to say, yes. Yes, I do think that they murdered Shepard as a way to attack the entire gay community.
quote:
What positive effects do you think would have resulted if these guys were punished for a hate crime instead?
(*sigh*)
You act as if the only way a hate crime can manifest is with murder.
You're absolutely right: The dial doesn't go to 11. When you've already hit the maximum by engaging in murder, it really doesn't matter what else is involved. But by this logic, we should never try anybody for multiple homicide because "what positive effects could result if the suspect is punished for four counts of murder in the first instead of only one?"
Here's a thought: Justice. Justice would be the positive effect of these people being charged with the complete set of crimes they actually committed.
Or is justice a fool's errand?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 351 of 376 (541157)
01-01-2010 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Legend
12-30-2009 1:30 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
She was charged and convicted of "racially aggravated criminal damage". Didn't you read the source?
Yes. Did you?
She pled guilty.
Therefore, even she thinks she did it. Are we now about to say that people who admit their crimes didn't actually commit the crime?
quote:
She wasn't just convicted of "criminal damage", the "racially aggravated" bit was added on to it because she called him a racial epithet.
Which she admitted to. Are we not to take her at her own word?
quote:
this is the APCO (Police) guidance that I've already linked to at least three times in this thread. Doesn't your browser follow links?
Indeed. But as we've already been through every time you bring it up, it doesn't actually say what you think it says.
Hint: What is the difference between a hate "crime" and a hate "incident"?
You are confusing the standard for a hate "incident" and reacting as if it were a hate "crime."
quote:
I could comment on your sanitised justification of why the Police record and put a 'hate' tag on incidents that aren't criminal offences in the first place
You did read your own source, didn't you? They tell you precisely why they keep track of these things.
Hint: If there is a rash of "incidents" in an area, what might be a reasonable prediction? Why would this be of interest to a law enforcement agency?
quote:
unlike their response to non-hate-crime incidents
Huh? What on earth makes you think the police don't record other incidents? The police force in England and Wales now have cameras in their helmets to document incidents. The recordings are not to be used as evidence and are destroyed after 31 days.
Where on earth do you get this fantasy that hate crimes are handled in a completely different manner than any other crime?
quote:
but I won't.
Go with that feeling. Your understanding of your own country's laws and procedures is not serving you well.
You need to start reading your sources before you post them.
quote:
The point is that a Hate-Crime is tagged as such based soley on the perception of the victim or any other person.
And? You don't get to be convicted of it unless you can prove it.
That's why Tweedy was found not guilty, as you'll recall. There was sufficient evidence to justify a charge, but the jury did not think it was sufficient to sustain it.
All crimes carry that risk. All crimes run the risk of having enough evidence to bring a person to trial but that the jury will determine that the person didn't do it.
The fact that you don't complain about this basic truth of a trial system indicates that it isn't the crime that is your source of discomfort but the people being protected.
quote:
So if you see someone you dislike doing something illegal just tell the police that you perceive his actions to be motivated by prejudice or hate and you'll ruin his reputation, if not add some more time to his sentence.
Right, because the police certainly won't do any investigation to determine if the charges are legitimate, the defense certainly won't try to impeach any evidence brought forward, and the prosecution won't even bother to provide any evidence but will simply insist that the jury find a defendant guilty.
And, of course, the judge will sit blithely by while all of this takes place, never commenting that no evidence to justify the charge was ever put forward.
That must be why you've been able to show myriad people being convicted off of no evidence.
No, wait...all you've been able to show is somebody receiving a letter, somebody being found not guilty, and somebody pleading guilty.
We're still waiting for the example of anybody anywhere being convicted for speech. Now, I understand if it will take you some time to do so since the very law you're complaining about specifically denies the law's ability to convict anybody for speech, but I'm sure you've got an example of the law being misapplied which is proof positive that the law needs to be abolished.
Which is why you are championing the abolution of child sexual abuse laws. The McMartins were put on trial for six years, the longest and most expensive trial in history, over the flimsiest of evidence. The prosecution was outrageously bad regarding this case and thus makes it clear that child sexual abuse laws don't actually do any good but simply make life hell for innocent people.
If a law is ever misapplied, that means it's a bad law and should be tossed.
quote:
It's funny though how the police are not aware of "the potential to escalate into a critical incident" when you ring to report a crowd of youths hanging on the street corner.
Yeah. That's why they never investigate. That's why they don't have cameras on their helmets to record such incidents. That's why they don't record any incidents.
Oh, wait. They do. They do all those things. Since you seem to like the Guardian:
The mini digital cameras, strapped to the helmet headbands of patrolling police officers, are to be used to film rowdy late-night scenes, underage drinkers, controversial stop and search confrontations and domestic violence incidents.
-Police to use helmet cams to record public order incidents
It would seem that you simply aren't telling the truth about what the police do.
Wow. What happened to your argument?
quote:
Their standard response is "call us when an offence is committed".
Strange how your own country's press seems to be of the opinion that the police actually investigate things rather than your fantasy of waiting for stuff to land in their laps. Heck, the Greater Manchester Police Department has a whole section about their "Neighbourhood Policing" program. It details how the police are going to be out in force to reduce anti-social behaviour. There's even a publication about how they found that about 10% of reported burglaries are false reports and how they trained the police to identify such false reports and provide a way for the people making such false reports to fess up without fear of prosecution.
Did you bother to do any research at all regarding the function of your local constabulary?
quote:
But I forget, they don't score any PC points for tackling real crime, hate crimes are the flavour of the month, they are the ones to look out for. Pathetic.
Hmmm...that must be why I can't find any statistical breakdown of crime.
No, wait...I can.
Wow. What happened to your argument?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:30 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 352 of 376 (541158)
01-01-2010 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Legend
12-30-2009 1:51 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
But the reason why 'hate'-crimes should be punished, as you and Straggler keep telling me, is because they are an 'attack on the whole community'. You've even called them 'terrorism'.
And? She pled guilty.
quote:
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community', do you?
Not every single one, no. Just as I don't think that every single killing of one human being by another is murder. Sometimes, it isn't even a crime.
But I'm hardly going to do away with the murder statutes just because some people are charged with murder but didn't actually do it.
quote:
You don't seriously believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out was an incident of 'terrorism', do you?
Not every single one, no. Just as I don't think that every single physical attack upon one human being by another is assault. Sometimes it isn't even a crime.
But I'm hardly going to do away with the assault statutes just because some people are charged with assault but didn't actually do it.
quote:
OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is an 'attack on the whole community' !!!
Sometimes, yes. Surely you aren't saying that only crime that happens on the grandest of scales has any real meaning, are you?
quote:
OMG!!! You *actually* believe that a racial epithet by a drunken woman on a night out is 'terrorism' !!!
Sometimes, yes. Surely you aren't saying that only if people die is it worth anything, are you?
You seem to be suffering from what I call the "doesn't kick puppies syndrome." It's the idea that something is only bad if it rises to some truly horrendous level. So long as we can prove that the person "doesn't kick puppies," then what happened wasn't really that bad and certainly we shouldn't consider the person to be a bad person.
Being a bigot does not mean that the person lies in wait to kill people nor does the fact that bigotry can happen at a lesser level make it innocuous and of no concern.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:51 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 353 of 376 (541159)
01-01-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taz
12-30-2009 5:44 PM


Taz writes:
quote:
Just like those men who killed Matthew Sheppard didn't set out to send a message to the whole gay community when they decided on a whim to kidnap Matthew, torture him for hours, and left him to die tied to a fence.
It's hard to know if you were being sarcastic or not.
But just so you know, in case you weren't, this claim isn't true. They were, indeed, trying to send a message to the whole gay community.
One of them (Henderson, if I recall correctly), has admitted to such. They went out to specifically bash gay people. They picked up Shepard specifically because he was gay. They plotted their actions specifically to get a gay person to "jack" (their words). This was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. It did not "get out of hand." They knew exactly what they were doing.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 12-30-2009 5:44 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-01-2010 7:58 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 355 by Taz, posted 01-01-2010 11:21 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 371 of 376 (544071)
01-23-2010 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Legend
01-02-2010 8:37 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
Simply for speech? No I haven't. Though here's one if you wamt one.
(*sigh*)
When are you going to learn to read your own sources before you post them:
The jury found her not guilty of possessing articles for terrorist purposes.
The question now becomes: Do you think there is such a thing as "incitement"? Is that an actual crime? Because she was found guilty of "collecting articles 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'."
So once again, you haven't been able to provide us with a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech.
quote:
Besides why is it that you need for someone to be convicted for speech to concede that certain speech is persecuted?
Because it is disingenuous at best to claim that a law is bad simply because somebody had to go through the process of a trial and be found not guilty. By this logic, we should do away with all crime statutes because every single one of them will eventually be prosecuted against an innocent person. We do not whine that there is a "chilling effect" simply because it is possible that someone might be incorrectly accused of murder.
Why are you complaining that prosecuting people for terrorism will have such a chilling effect? We should coddle terrorists lest their pwecious feewings get hurt?
quote:
Don't the numerous cases of people receiving official police visits *just because they expressed an opinion* suffice?
What "numerous cases"? So far, you've only presented the single case of a woman who received a letter that everybody, including the police department, agree shouldn't have been sent. You're arguing that because a law was mistakenly applied, then it should be scrapped entirely.
Great, then let's do away with murder charges because there are plenty of people who have been wrongly accused of murder.
quote:
What's the matter, do you need to see barbed-wire fences, guard-dogs and dawn raids before you accept that free speech is being suppressed?
No, what I need to see is a single person whose speech was suppressed. So far, you haven't found anybody.
quote:
No, I've already shown you several cases of people receiving an official police visit because they voiced some 'incorrect' thought or cracked an 'incorrect' joke.
Incorrect. You gave a single example where everybody concerned agreed that it was a mistake.
quote:
I see you missed the immediately following clause. Here it is:
Huh? Where are you finding this? I am looking at the official publication of the law and it doesn't have that anywhere.
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
You're talking about an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
quote:
If the law feels the need to clarify that the discussion or criticism of *only* sexual conduct is not "intended to stir up hatred",
And why do you think that is? When was the last time you heard someone in a church going on and on about how the blacks are going to destroy the country? No, it's always the gays. The reason they made this point is precisely because the religious groups made a stink in trying to say that such legislation would criminalize their sermons on the evils of homosexuality.
They put in that amendment because the previous act was to extend the Public Order Act to cover sexual orientation. And since homophobes are scared that they might get called out, they wanted a way to cover their terrorism under the guise of "freedom of religion."
quote:
this implies that the discussion or criticism of racial/other conduct *IS* "intended to stir up hatred" and is therefore criminal!
Huh? "Racial conduct"? What exactly is "racial conduct"? Black people don't put their pants on the same way as white people?
Personally, I find the need to have this section attached is ridiculous. We don't coddle any other kind of bigotry, so why the special treatment made for homophobes? We know that racists are allowed to voice their racist opinions without fear of prosecution, so why should there be any difference in how homophobes are treated with respect to the law? If the KKK still exists without fear of prosecution, then so can the preacher.
The reason this is brought up is precisely because those who dance quite close to the line of inciting terrorism are afraid that they're going to get called on it when they cross it. They want to have their pwecious feewings cloaked in the garb of "freedom of religion" as if that is justification for terrorism.
It is completely inappropriate to single out gay people as being so disturbing to other people that we need to coddle their tormentors lest they find themselves shunned. We didn't need to do this for race, sex, or any other category. Why are people so afraid of gay people?
quote:
The government is currently battling to repeal this particular clause which ensures that people can criticise homosexual behaviour without fear of prosecution.
You need to keep up. They've abandoned such attempts.
quote:
This is a clear message of the government's intentions to suppress free speech and legitimise 'Thought-crimes'!
On the contrary. What it shows is that the homophobes still run the show. We don't do this for any other category. What is especially threatening about gay people that the terrorist need to hide behind false claims of "freedom of religion"? White supremacy groups seem to be able to function just fine without running afoul of the law. Why are homophobes so scared that they're actually promoting terrorism? Why would actions that we wouldn't coutenance against any other group need to be acceptable simply because people claim to have a "religious objection" to gay people?
quote:
Of course! Hurray for the Lords, eh? Isn't ironic that our elected representatives are trying to suppress our freedom of speech while a bunch of un-elected toffs are trying to protect it?!
Perhaps because the lower house was of the opinion that the laws protecting freedom of speech were assumed and didn't need to be singled out.
quote:
I don't know of anyone who's been charged and prosecuted (let alone convicted) of murder just because someone said they're murderers! Do you?
I'm not sure what you mean, but for one of my interpretations, the people who have been released from death row because they were innocent would like to have a word.
But if you are trying to say something else, then nobody has been charged or prosecuted for a hate crime just because someone said so. After all, one needs to commit an actual crime such as assault, vandalism, etc. Plus, one needs to provide physical evidence that the special circumstances of a hate crime are met which requires more than just somebody saying so.
All crimes, even hate crimes, require evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence.
quote:
I fail to see any legal definitions, court cases or even police guidelines where murder is defined simply as the "perception of the victim or anyone else" that murder happened! Can you?
And since hate crime isn't defined that way, one wonders what you're complaining about.
Don't tell me you have confused "incident" and "crime" again, have you?
quote:
See, unlike hate/thought crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act
Huh? Hate crimes are also judged and punished based upon the accused's actions and deliberation to act. In fact, it is the proof of deliberation that make it a hate crime.
quote:
*NOT* on their thoughts/feelings and their ulterior intents and motives.
Since you haven't found anybody who has been convicted of such a thing, one wonders what you're complaining about. The closest you have come is a single letter sent to a woman that everybody, including the department who sent it, agrees shouldn't have happened.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Legend, posted 01-02-2010 8:37 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Legend, posted 01-27-2010 12:37 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 375 by Legend, posted 01-29-2010 8:23 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 372 of 376 (544073)
01-23-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Legend
01-02-2010 12:17 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
So she committed a crime but her comments turned it into a racially-motivated crime.
Since evidence was required to be presented to prove that she had committed a crime, why are you complaining that evidence was required to be presented to prove that she had committed a hate crime? As I said, the incident had indications that something else was involved and thus, a jury needed to be employed to sort it out.
quote:
the alleged comments were denied by the accused and only belatedly made by the victim with no supporting witnesses. Still, the accused was prosecuted for a racially-motivated assault instead of just assault. This wouldn't happen with most other offences.
Oh, please! I realize that you don't live in the US, but you have been in this thread and are aware of the McMartin Preschool Case (you did pay attention and do your homework, right?) The longest criminal trial in US history, all on the basis of what some people said even though there was absolutely no physical evidence of any kind.
But more directly to the specific case, of course the accused is going to say they didn't do it. We wouldn't be having a trial unless they had pled not guilty. It then requires a jury to determine whether or not the various witnesses are reliable.
And she was found not guilty.
quote:
You, Straggler and others are claiming that we need hate-crime laws in order to punish targeting and initimidation of whole communities. In this particular incident there is no evidence that a whole community was targeted or even attempted to be targeted and lots of evidence that it wasn't.
Huh? Racial attacks are not against a "whole community"? You seem to think that unless one is plotting something along the lines of a genocide, then it isn't really a terrorist attack.
quote:
So? What's this got to do with anything?
That if she was defending herself, nothing she did was a crime. This isn't a case where someone is saying that yes, it was a crime but that it wasn't a hate crime. Instead, this is a case where someone is saying that not only wasn't it a hate crime, but also that it wasn't a crime in the first place.
quote:
Because she was charged with assault presumably on the basis of some evidence.
And she was charged with a hate crime on the basis of evidence, too. So why are you complaining?
quote:
Also, because I have no objections to people being prosecuted for what they do. I have major objections to people being prosecuted for what they say!
So there is no such crime as incitement?
And hate crimes aren't prosecuted on the basis of what you say. They are prosecuted on what you do. What you say is simply evidence for what you are doing.
For example, it is rape to knowingly trick someone into thinking you are someone else in order to have sex. F'rinstance, to impersonate your twin in order to have sex with your twin's partner. A defense against this is that you didn't knowingly do it. It was late, we'd all been drinking, the partner came into my room and initiated it.
But if we have evidence of you saying beforehand that you were planning on doing it, that blows your defense out of the water. The action is still the same, but it is your statements that are used as evidence that what you did was a crime. If there were no statements of you plotting this, then there would be no proof that it was a crime. A tragic accident, yes, but not a crime.
Same thing for a hate crime. The actions remain the same, but your statements indicate that what you did was not simple criminal activity but was rather an act of terrorism.
quote:
I'm not, because there was some evidence of an assault
Self-defense isn't assault. There was evidence of a physical altercation. It required a trial to determine if a crime had been committed.
quote:
Just because she claimed it was self-defence doesn't mean it was.
And just because someone claims they didn't say what they said doesn't mean they didn't.
And just because someone claims they didn't engage in their activities due to bias doesn't mean they didn't.
That's why we have trials. If you aren't going to complain about the assault charge, why on earth are you complaining about the hate crime charge? It is in exactly the same situation.
quote:
Unlike the other party where she was taken at her word when she claimed it was a racist epithet.
Incorrect. Evidence was presented. The statement is evidence that the act was more than a simple criminal act but rather something more. When the claim is that it couldn't have happened because you didn't mean to do it and we have evidence of you making statements that no, you really did, then your statements are evidence.
It is then up to the jury to determine whether or not the witnesses to your statements are credible.
We do this all the time with other crimes. Where is your complaint for them?
quote:
I didn't claim it was her right NOT to be subjected to a trial, I pointed out that the trial is punishing in its own right
And thus she shouldn't have to be subjected to it as if she had a right not to be subjected to trial. She wasn't put on trial on some whim. There was evidence to support it. If there weren't, the defense would be on that so fast that the dismissal would happen before the lawyer even got the words out.
quote:
having to go through it solely because of someone's allegation negates the purpose of the law
But that isn't what happens. People don't get accused of hate crimes out of the blue. A crime needs to be committed first. And then investigations have to be made to determine if there is evidence that something more than a simple criminal action took place. Yes, statements are going to be part of that, but statements are part of every criminal investigation. In fact, your statements will probably be brought in as evidence that what you committed was murder instead of manslaughter, was murder one rather than murder two.
You don't complain about these statements being used to determine crime in any other area, so why are you complaining about it here?
A car runs down the street, crashes into a house, and kills the person sitting in the living room.
If you come running down that street screaming, "Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" then we're probably not going to charge murder. But if you were to come running down the street screaming, "Take that, you bastard!" well, that's something different. The exact same action, but your statements made during the crime shift it from manslaughter to murder.
It's then going to go to the jury to decide whether or not the witnesses to your statements are reliable. Now, of course we might expect you to deny having said it. After all, a charge of murder is a serious thing. But the prosecution isn't going to go forward with a murder charge unless they have evidence to back it up.
So "someone's allegation" is sufficient to back up a charge of murder as compared to manslaughter, why is it suddenly beyond the pale when backing up a charge of a hate crime as compared to a simple crime?
quote:
for the last few paragraphs we've been discussing a case where the accused was charged with a racially-aggravated crime exactly exactly for (allegedly) speaking.
No, we were discussing the case of a crime being committed and the statements made during the commission of the crime were evidence that the crime was beyond a simple crime but tread into the area of terrorism. It's the exact same process that allows us to distinguish murder and manslaughter and the various degrees of same. It wasn't simple speech that was being prosecuted. It was a crime in which the speech made during its commission indicated that it was more than a simple crime.
quote:
Ok, so that makes it slightly better than being charged purely for speaking. Is that really your saving grace?
Huh? You've been whining for weeks about "actions, not words," and when I point out that it is an action that is being prosecuted, then you have the audacity to complain?
You can stand on the street corner and say whatever you want without fear of prosecution (barring incitement). Why? Because you haven't done anything. You have to commit an actual crime before your statements become important. But when you go and do something, then what you say has a lot to do with it because what you say lets us know what you were trying to do. For example, you might have been trying to do something really big but because you were incompetent, it fizzled. But because your statements let us know exactly how large the scope of your action was, we can prosecute you for grand larceny rather than petty theft.
quote:
But the standard of evidence is so much flimsier for hate-crimes.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Is your argument that the entire judicial system is involved in a grand conspiracy to prosecute everybody of a hate crime? That the judges and defense attorneys have all gone insane and have forgotten the rules of evidence?
quote:
I've already quoted you what it takes: A Perception by the Victim Or Anyone Else!
Incorrect. Don't tell me you've confused an "incident" with a "crime" again.
quote:
Being charged and prosecuted for a hate-crime simply because someone alleged that you uttered an 'inappropriate' word causes a Huge Heap of Trouble for free speech.
And if there were anybody anywhere who had been so charged and prosecuted, I'd be right there with you fighting it.
But so far, you haven't been able to show a single person who has been. The closest you came was a single woman who had a letter sent to her that everyone, including the department who sent it, agreed shouldn't have been.
Instead, hate crimes are prosecuted when a crime has taken place and there is evidence that the crime committed was more than just a simple crime but moved into the realm of terrorism. Your statements will be part of that evidence. This is exactly what happens in every other crime out there. Was it manslaughter or murder? Well, what did you say as the other person was dying at your hands? Was it theft or larceny? Well, what did you say as you were taking the property? So since we do the exact same thing for every other crime out there, why are you having such a problem with this example?
The McMartin trial was completely based upon statements. No physical evidence of any kind. And yet, it spawned the longest, most expensive trial in US history.
Just because the laws against sexual abuse of children were grossly misapplied in this case, I'm not going to say we need to get rid of them.
quote:
If you seriously can't see how then let me know and I'll elaborate.
You could start by showing me a single person who was prosecuted simply for speech.
quote:
now straighten your knickers and try to counter what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying.
Already done. You will notice that I know your sources better than you because I actually read them.
Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere suffering what you claim hate crimes laws causes? So far, you haven't given us anybody.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Legend, posted 01-02-2010 12:17 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 373 of 376 (544087)
01-23-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Legend
01-03-2010 12:49 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity.
Right, because the entire legal system has become incompetent where judges and defense attorneys have all forgotten about the rules of evidence and how to dismiss charges with prejudice.
And because we need to have a special set of laws for famous people.
quote:
The 'evidence' was that the victim (belatedly) said so.
So? It's still evidence.
quote:
Which is why the jury didn't convict her of a hate-crime!
Which is what they're supposed to do when they don't find evidence convincing. What's the problem?
quote:
No, the attorney must have surely pointed out that his client never called the victim a racial epithet, that she had no reason for doing so and that there was no evidence that she did.
So why did that charge make it to the jury at all? It's called a "motion to dismiss" and is made before it even gets to trial. Why did the defense not do this? Because the judge was in on the conspiracy? Or was it because there was enough evidence to warrant going to trial over this charge and thus, that was a question for the jury to decide, not a simple matter of law that the judge decides?
If there truly was no evidence, then how on earth did it manage to get as far as it did? Unless you're going to assume incompetence or conpsiracy on the part of the defense/judiciary, then there must have been something else going on.
quote:
That's *your logic*, not mine!
You're the one complaining about reputations being destroyed by inappropriate charges being filed. Well, that's the case for every single law out there. The McMartins had their lives destroyed in one of the worst miscarriages of justice seen. And yet, I wouldn't dare call for a repeal of the laws involved. The reasons you are bringing forward as reasons to repeal the hate crimes laws can be applied to every single law out there. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the use of statements as evidence and the threat to personal reputation are sufficient to strike hate crimes laws from the books, then every other law has to go to because all crimes use statements as evidence and all prosecutions result in loss of personal reputation.
quote:
I'm just asking that the same standard of evidence and investigative standards are applied across the board of criminal cases.
And they are. That's why we keep bringing up the murder statutes: What you say determines whether you get manslaughter or murder.
quote:
If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word then neither should they be charged with hate-crimes based on someone's word.
Except they are. People are charged with them purely on someone's word. What you say lets us know what your intent is.
quote:
If no-one is charged with murder unless there is evidence that they planned to kill
Which your statements most decidely are. What you say in the commission of a crime helps us know what crime you actually committed.
quote:
then neither should anyone be charged with hate-crimes unless there is the same standard of evidence that they planned to "terrorise" or "subjugate" the whole community, instead of just uterring a stupid, hurtful epithet during a drunken fight.
You act as if a drunken fight can't be an act of terrorism. The crime isn't the utterance. It's the fight. The utterance lets us know if the fight was just a simple crime or something more than that.
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during the act.
quote:
For you, this is evidently too much to ask.
No, for me it is precisely what we do with every other crime out there. That you seem to want to complain about it is indicative that it's not about the crime or the prosecution of it.
quote:
I never suggested or implied that we shouldn't.
Did you or did you not say:
It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity.
quote:
I never suggested or implied that there aren't.
Did you or did you not say:
If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word
quote:
What does it matter?
Because one is an actual crime for which you can be prosecuted and convicted while the other is just the police paying attention to what is going on in the neighborhood since things that aren't crimes now might escalate into crimes later. Don't tell me you want the police to maintain a perpetual state of naivete, are you?
quote:
The point is that they are both based on what is "perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate." (quoting from source).
No, they're not. An incident is only about perception. A crime requires evidence. If they were both the same thing, why do you think the police don't arrest those who are only involved in an "incident"? Yes, that's right: Because they haven't committed a crime.
quote:
Why are you even asking?
Because you have confused an "incident" with a "crime." You are complaining that what is used to justify the police recording a hate "incident" is the same level of evidence required to prosecute a hate "crime." And that is not the case. Your own sources indicate the difference between the two. This is why I keep asking if you have bothered to read your sources before you post them because they literally do not say what you claim they do.
quote:
Unlike hate crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings/words and their ulterior intents and motives.
Incorrect:
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during your act.
This is why I pointed out that you are arguing that there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof. You are arguing that a person's statements aren't used in prosecution of these crimes but they are. They are often why a crime is being prosecuted as murder rather than manslaughter.
quote:
Hence, I'm not complaining about the murder statute. Is this finally clear?
No, because murder is prosecuted in exactly the same way. What you say is what let's us know that what you did was murder, not manslaughter.
So if it isn't problematic with regard to murder, why does it suddenly become a problem with regard to hate crime? You aren't being charged with what you said. You're being charged with what you did. What you said simply lets us know the extent of what you were doing.
quote:
And that's yet another reason why we should be campaigning for equal standard of evidence across the criminal board and *against* moral-crusade legislation like hate-crime and sex-offence laws which justify some sinister and dubious means towards a well-intended end.
But I'm not arguing against the crimes against sexual molestation of children. I want them to stay on the books. And while the McMartin case was a travesty, that wasn't the law's fault. It was the human beings who let the case get away from them. It happens all the time and for every single crime. Have you read up on the history of Fatty Arbuckle? A woman died and he was charged with first-degree murder on the basis of a single witness saying that the victim said, "Roscoe hurt me." This was after their primary witness wasn't put on the stand due to her horrendous background involving racketeering, fraud, and extortion made her an incredibly unreliable witness. The case was almost thrown out until the new witness made the claim. The first trial deadlocked and in the second trial, she testified that the prosecuting attorney subborned perjury from her.
The third trial resulted in a unanimous verdict of not guilty after only six minutes of deliberation. The jury even apologized to Arbuckle. And yet despite all this, his career was ruined.
But I'm not going to complain about the murder laws just because some human beings made a mistake in prosecuting them.
quote:
Just because someone has a black cat doesn't mean that they're a witch.
Just because someone has painful bowel movements doesn't mean that they've been sexually abused.
Just because someone drunkenly and mid-fight calls a cab driver a 'Paki' doesn't mean that they're a racist, out to subgugate the whole community.
And just because somebody says they didn't do it doesn't mean they didn't.
quote:
I don't know the precise wording of the child abuse laws or guidance but if they're anything like hate-crime laws whereby anyone can be culpable based merely on the "perception of the victim or any other person", then yes, damn right we need to do away with them.
But hate crimes laws don't make you culpable based merely on perception. You have confused an "incident" with a "crime" again.
quote:
After all, your good self brought up an excellent example (McMartins) of what can happen when all it takes to charge and prosecute is someone's 'perception'!
No, not "perception." Actual statements. Whom the prosecutors thought they had managed to get corroborated through other statements. The problem was the method by which these statements were being gathered. Children are easily convinced to say things that aren't true. The law needs to stay. The people charged with carrying out the law need to learn how to carry it out.
quote:
What does it matter?
Because an "incident" is not a "crime." The standards for having the police record an "incident" are not the same as those required for prosecuting a "crime." One is something that gets people arrested and possible sent to jail. The other is just the police paying attention to what's going on in the neighborhood. Are you saying that police shouldn't be paying attention to things that, while not crimes right now, might escalate into crimes in the future? Your own sources made the distinction between "incidents" and "crimes." It's a shame that you still haven't read them.
quote:
What matters is that all you have to do to get even with your enemies is to report to police that they did something "motivated by
prejudice or hate."
All that'll do is get an "incident" filed. For a crime, you need more. You did read your own sources before you posted them, yes?
quote:
If it's a non-criminal incident then they're going to get a police record with the tag "POTENTIAL HATE CRIMINAL" on it!
No, it won't. It just gets an incident report.
quote:
If it's a criminal offence then they're going to get a few more months/years added onto their sentence. It's a win-win situation, don't you agree?
Huh? If it's a hate crime, then yes: It should be prosecuted differently than if it were a simple crime. Just like grand larceny should be prosecuted differently from petty theft; that reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof should all be prosecuted differently, and sometimes based upon the statements made by the accused during the act that is being charged:
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
quote:
Ahhh, but I forget: You refuse to accept that hate-crimes punish perceived motive.
It's not a question of "refuse." It's a question of the law specifically saying it punishes intent. Of course, you're the one that is claiming that when a law that was written by lawyers, for lawyers, and is carried out by lawyers says, "intent," what they really mean is "motive." And your justification for this is that the sequence of letters is "i-n-t-e-n-d-s" rather than "i-n-t-e-n-t."
quote:
Despite what the Police says.
The police say that an "incident" is not a "crime." You did read your own source, yes?
quote:
Despite what the Home Office says. Despite what the FBI says.
No, specifically because a press release is not the same as the law. Ah, but in your mind, a law written by lawyers for lawyers and is carried out by lawyers really didn't mean "intent" when it said "intent" and the entire legal profession has gone insane.
quote:
Despite what most legal web-sites and dictionaries say.
(*chuckle*) Nice try but when it comes to the law, the law trumps what everybody else says. If the law says, "intent," it doesn't mean "motive."
quote:
Riigghhhhht....
Yep.
So far you still haven't managed to show me where in the law it says anything but "intent." Your only argument so far is that because the sequence of letters is not "i-n-t-e-n-t," that means the law is referring to motive.
quote:
I've already linked to two serious cases
Neither of which supported your claim. In fact, they supported mine: Not one case of anybody convicted simply for speaking. The closest you have come is a single woman who received a letter that everybody, including the department that sent the letter, agrees should never have been sent.
quote:
Without even mentioning the numerous other cases of police 'having a word' with people who expressed an 'incorrect' opinion.
And your evidence of this is? And the cops shouldn't be talking to people that are running really close toward breaking the law that they might want to pay attention to what they're doing? The cops should never pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood lest things that aren't crimes now escalate to crimes later?
quote:
I've provided plenty of evidence.
Indeed...evidence in support of my position. I'm still waiting for the person who was prosecuted simply for speech. All you've got is a letter that everybody, including the department that sent it, agrees shouldn't have been sent. Such laws have been on the books for decades here in the US and despite all this "chilling of speech" that you have been railing against, we still have white supremacist groups having their parades and gatherings where they set up PA systems to broadcast their missives to the world at large.
Where are the people being arrested for what they said on Speaker's Corner?
quote:
But then again, you're the person who refuses to believe what the Police, Home Office and FBI are saying
Huh? I believe what they are saying. I just understand the difference between a press release sent out to people who don't know what "intent" and "motive" are and the law. I understand that the entire judicial profession has simultaneously developed insanity such that when the law says, "intent," they read it as "motive."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Legend, posted 01-03-2010 12:49 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 376 of 376 (545043)
01-31-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Legend
01-29-2010 8:23 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The question now becomes: Do you think there is such a thing as "incitement"?
Yes. Unfortunately the legal definition covers a very broad spectrum of words and actions.
But by the logic you have been presenting here, there can be no such thing as "incitement" because it is mere words, not actions. You're contradicting yourself.
quote:
And that's exactly why I have such grave concerns about this law.
But that wasn't a hate crime law. Why did you bring up a red herring?
quote:
Her speech led to her arrest and trial!
Didn't you just say that incitement was a crime? Which is it? Can speech be sufficient cause for police to investigate potential crime or not? You seem to be upset that the cops are paying attention.
quote:
I've already provided many examples of people getting intimidated by the authorities because they expressed an opinion.
No, you haven't. You've provided examples of the police investigating possible crimes, which is their job. By your logic, every single act of investigation by the police regarding a potential crime that doesn't lead anywhere is an act of "intimidation."
Once again, your argument is that if a law is ever misapplied anywhere at any time, then it is a corrupt law and needs to be done away with. And thus, we need to reject all laws for every single law has the potential to be misapplied as every single law must be enforced by fallible humans.
Do tell: Exactly how do you expect the police to determine if a crime has been committed if they are not allowed to interview people regarding the incident? After all, the police cannot be at all places at all times. They will necessarily have to subject people to scrutiny. For you to call this "intimidation" means that there can never be any real justice system.
quote:
No, because in the vast majority of cases where people have been wrongly prosecuted for some crime it's been either because of a failure of the system or a failure of the people implementing the system.
And how is this any different for hate crimes? You haven't provided any evidence of such. If wrongly accusing someone of murder does cause a "chilling effect," why would wrongful accusation for any other crime do so?
quote:
But these hate/incitement/witch-hunt laws are something totally different: they actually promote and foster prosecution based simply on *perception*
Incorrect. You're confusing incidents with crimes again.
quote:
Prosecuting people for terrorism...?
Yes. Hate crimes are terrorism. You have been paying attention to this thread, have you not? The reason why a hate crime is more significant than other crimes is due to the fact that a hate crime affects more than the individual person it is carried out against. By your logic, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should only be tried with aggravated vandalism. But clearly, what he was doing was something much more than that.
quote:
Prosecuting people for writing poems, no matter how distasteful and disagreeable they are?
Where was this? You haven't given any example of such. Nobody has been arrested simply for "writing poems." Something much more was involved. Let's not pretend that the prosecution was for "writing poems."
quote:
# 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for expressing an opinion about homosexuality.
# 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for cracking an 'incorrect' joke.
Where's the intimidation? Oh, that's right...anytime the police talk to anybody, it's intimidation. So we had better make sure that nobody is ever questioned by the police regarding anything. The only crimes that can ever be prosecuted are those for which the police have direct experience.
quote:
# 1 case of a woman who was charged and tried with a racially-aggravated crime because her opponent belatedly alleged to have been called a racial epithet.
And found innocent. Oh, that's right...anybody ever accused of a crime and found innocent is proof that the law is bad and thus should be abolished. And since all crimes are incorrectly applied at some point, all laws should be done away with.
quote:
# 1 case of a woman who was charged, tried and convicted with a racially-aggravated crime because her drunken stupidity was deemed to be racist, or deemed to "try to subjugate the community" as you put it.
Incorrect. She pleaded guilty.
quote:
# 1 case of a mugger who had his sentence multiplied because his actions were unfoundedly deemed to be hateful.
"Unfounded"? Says who? You? So far, not a single example you've given supports your claims. In fact, many of them say the exact opposite.
quote:
create crimes of perception
Incorrect. You're confusing incidents with crimes again.
quote:
suppress free speech and freedom of expression.
So why are there still white supremacy groups?
quote:
lack supporting evidence that these laws have any deterrent effect, that they protect the public.
Says who? You? So we should deny justice simply because there are lots of people who want to commit crime?
quote:
only increase social and racial tensions by adding special weight on crimes dependent on the race/religion/sexuality of the victim.
Not a single word of that is true. The King verdict riots are proof against that. And there is no "dependent" aspect. All races, religions, and sexualities are protected. That's why of all the racial hate crimes that were committed here in the US, about 20% of them were committed against whites. How could we even know that if they were "dependent" upon race?
quote:
punish an anticipated impact on the community which, apart from patronising, is unproven and often simply not true, i.e these laws punish ghost-crimes.
Incorrect. They punish a very real impact upon the community. The charges against the police in Atlanta and their raid of the Eagle prove that.
And I would think Matthew Shepard might have something to say about this "ghost-crime" he somehow managed to die from.
quote:
Murder convictions are based on (i) evidence that a killing has been commited by the defendant
And hate crime convictions are based on evidence that the defendent committed the crime, too. No, not "perception" but real felonies committed against a community using an individual as a proxy.
So why the special pleading?
quote:
evidence that the killing was planned and intentional, that's what makes it murder as opposed to manslaughter.
That's trying to read somebody's thoughts, is it not? You mean if we find poems of the accused where he writes about how he's going to kill someone in a certain way and we find the victim killed in precisely that manner, we shouldn't be allowed to use it as proof because we'd be punishing them for "writing poems"?
So why the special pleading?
quote:
Hate-crime convictions on the other hand are based on the perception of the victim or anyone else that the crime was motivated (specifically-intented, if it makes you feel better) by hate on race/religious/etc grounds.
Incorrect. You're confusing incidents with crimes again.
quote:
Take the Cheryl Tweedy case
We already did. She claimed self-defense, indicating that she didn't think she even committed a crime. Too, she wasn't being charged for saying something. Instead, what she said was being used as proof that what she did was beyond simple assault. Just as a murderer's writings are used to show that what was done was beyond simply manslaughter.
Plus, she wasn't convicted.
quote:
Same thing with the drunken idiotic woman who called the cab driver a racist epithet.
You mean the one who pleaded guilty? Oh, that's right...you're capable of reading her mind.
quote:
To put this in the context of a murder case, since you so much love drawing parallels between the two, this would be the equivalent of someone calling the police claiming that you murdered someone.
Oh, but then the cops would "intimidate" people by sending someone out to actually investigate the crime, and we all know how horrible it is to be "intimidated" by the cops.
And again, you're confusing incidents with crimes.
quote:
Still, they arrest and charge you and you go to court.
Incorrect. My defense attorney is competent and asks for immediate dismissal with prejudice which the competent judge immediately grants and then files charges against the DA for malicious prosecution.
You're confusing incidents with crimes. Do you have an example of anybody ever being brought to trial on nothing more than a tip?
quote:
Thankfully, murder offences aren't pursued with the same zealotry as hate-crime offences
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? There are 10 times as many murders in the US as hate crimes, according to the stats.
quote:
require much more stringent standards of evidence than hearsay and conjecture
None of which is allowed in hate crimes trials, either. Hearsay is hearsay no matter what. Conjecture is never allowed in a trial.
Once again, your argument rests upon every single member of the entire judicial profession to have lost their minds, that not a single defense attorney would ever object to hearsay or conjecture and that if they had the sanity to do so, the judges are all involved in a vast conspiracy to overrule such.
quote:
Which is why no-one opposes murder statutes but many oppose hate-crime ones.
Incorrect. People oppose hate crimes laws because they don't understand what such legislation actually entails.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Legend, posted 01-29-2010 8:23 AM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024